Lord Rooker: My Lords, I might have missed something, but I am not sure why there is such jollity at the noble Lord's question. The Titanic Quarter in Belfast has enormous potential for the whole of Northern Ireland. There are private sector-led development plans for that part of Belfast. We would welcome all kinds of investment into Northern Ireland, particularly that based on tourism. The more private-sector investment, the better.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister has said twice in answer to supplementary questions that various grants exist to help such people in the educational system. Will he list some?

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the delay of more than one month in the production of an accessible version of the welfare reform Green Paper A New Deal for Welfare constitutes discrimination against disabled people; and whether disabled people will have the same consultation period as others.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the replies on this subject from Ministers here and in the House of Commons have been friendly, sympathetic and helpful. What is required now is for Ministers to consider the needs of disabled people as being as urgent and as important as those of non-disabled people rather than as an afterthought.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Bearing it in mind that all leading scientific bodies are concerned by the threat from climate change to Britain's habitats and species, is it not extraordinary that NERC should ignore the opinions of those bodies and proceed to close three CEH centres?

Lord Strathclyde: But, my Lords, I have no sympathy at all for the Prime Minister and his coterie of cronies who are at the heart of this affair. They have dragged politics, their party, and, sadly, this House, into disrepute. The buck stops firmly at No. 10. I accept that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not know about loans for peerages. Can it be true, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister did not know, that the Chancellor did not know, that even the Labour Treasurer did not know? As it concerns the honour of this House, who in the government machine knew that certain individuals had loaned money to the Labour Party before they were nominated for peerages in the current list? Was it the Patronage Secretary, or perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House or the noble Lord, Lord Levy? Just who did know, apart from the Prime Minister?
	I welcome this Statement, as far as it goes. We on this side supported the moves made in recent years to improve the law on party funding, since Mr Major set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1994. We will join in talks with Sir Hayden Phillips. My right honourable friend Mr Cameron has been working on proposals to reform the law on party funding. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider all those proposals, rather than rush to push through his own ideas—which, with the best will in the world, must have been cooked up in the No.10 kitchen after the story broke only a few days ago. Would it not be sensible to delay the Committee stage of the Electoral Administration Bill so that these critical matters can be considered in detail? If he cannot agree to that, will he use his considerable influence with the usual channels to ensure that time is made available to recommit any provisions that may be tabled on party finance, especially since we are already halfway through the Committee stage on that Bill? I know, for instance, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the Government Chief Whip, hopes that some time could become available—time that is now scheduled for the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
	I do not suppose that I was the only Peer who was amazed to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say on television that he had found a loophole in the legislation that he now wanted to close, and that he had a Bill he could use to do so. It sounded all too much like the burglar caught in the back garden, with a bag of swag, who says he only wanted to polish the silver.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Statement and the announcement of the review to be carried out by Sir Hayden Phillips. Under pressure first from the Appointments Commission, then from the media, the Government are being forced to consider doing things that they should have done long ago—which the Liberal Democrats have advocated for years. The mechanism of using huge loans as a way of evading the obligation to disclose donations has horrified the general public and has done much to increase public disdain for politicians and the political process. I am aware that the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 do not require disclosure of loans made on commercial terms. That reflected the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I confess I was a member of that committee at the time. We were, I am afraid, na-ve in not realising that loans—even at full market rates of interest—could and would be used for the evasion of the duty of disclosure. We therefore welcome the commitment to treat loans as donations, whatever the rate of interest. Last week, we on these Benches tabled amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill which will achieve this. We will probably reach them in the debate on Thursday. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would like to accept the ready-made alternatives that are already available.
	Our amendments would also treat as donations guarantees given by wealthy supporters of political parties of the bank loans and other debts incurred by those parties. If that is not done, it will obviously be the next loophole for evading disclosure. Therefore, will the Government also treat guarantees as donations of the amounts guaranteed for the purposes of disclosure? Otherwise, their amendments will be totally flawed.
	My next question—I wish to ask it of the Conservatives as well as of the Government—is whether any loans have been used to evade the ban on donations by non-residents of this country. If so, that is another, perhaps even more serious, breach of the spirit of the law in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Then, will the Government speed up Sir Hayden Phillips's timetable? He has been asked in his remit to report by the end of this year. It is extremely important that there should be legislation to deal with these matters in the 2006–07 Session, and that means legislation being written into the Queen's Speech. Therefore, will the Government be prepared to ask Sir Hayden to report by, say, mid-October so that that can be done?
	Will Sir Hayden look at the evasion of restrictions on constituency spending limits by, for example, the national parties sending leaflets to voters in target seats, which escape treatment as constituency expenditure because they do not mention the name of the party's candidate? Will Sir Hayden consider the proposal of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that something equivalent to gift aid should be available to enhance the value of small donations? Or will he consider the recommendations of the Power report that voters can tick a box on the ballot paper to donate £3 out of their taxes to the party for which they voted?
	Previously, the Government's answer to such ideas has been that they would take money which would otherwise go to schools and hospitals. Do the Government not realise that, alongside the billions which are rightly spent on schools and hospitals, it is vital to spend a tiny fraction of that amount on ensuring an honest and transparent electoral system?
	We are faced with a crisis of confidence in the entire political system and, indeed, in your Lordships' House. It is essential for the Leaders of all parties to display proper leadership. We need a recognition by all parties—of course, I include mine—that they have to comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law, and that clever schemes to evade the law will rebound on those who use them and on the whole political system, as these undisclosed loans have rebounded on the Government and on the Prime Minister.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the unequivocal support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the proposals that I am making. I deeply regret that the noble Lord the Leader of the Conservative Opposition does not appear to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, that it is a problem for every political party in this country. The problem has arisen precisely for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave. The Committee on Standards in Public Life proposed the exception for loans on commercial terms. Everyone thought that it was perfectly sensible that the borrowing from the National Westminster Bank should not have to be disclosed. The consequences of that exception have been revealed over the past few weeks, and we need to do something about it in order to restore public confidence.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I deeply regret that individuals' names have been brought into the press in the way that they have. I have absolutely no reason to suppose that that came from No. 10, but I share the noble Lord's deep concern that people who have given to public life in the way that many on the list have done have had their names besmirched in this way.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we also need to look at other issues, such as guarantees. There is a difference between what I am proposing now and what Sir Hayden Phillips will be looking at. As the chair of the Electoral Commission said in The Times this morning, we need to have political parties and they need to be funded. They need to be funded in a way that improves and impresses public confidence. That is a longer-term issue than that which can be dealt with by an amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill. But there is no need to delay introducing an amendment about transparency regarding loans. That is why I am making my announcement today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is absolutely right that I spoke on the radio and television about this issue today. I apologise to the House for that. It was entirely my decision and responsibility. It was an issue of great public importance, so I thought it right that the public debate should continue. I hope that those on the Benches opposite will support the proposal for greater transparency.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we need to see precisely what would be the best amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill in relation to the loans issues. In relation to the wider issues, we need a consensus across the political spectrum, embracing all parties. That way we will have a durable solution. I do not think it is possible to pre-seed the way in which one would do that in the Electoral Administration Bill. I do not know what the Regulation Committee here would say, but introducing an enabling power to deal with an as yet unknown proposal does not seem to be a sound way of proceeding.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us whether Sir Hayden Phillips's remit will enable him to look at the ceiling of expenditure at election times? After all, that is part of the root cause of why parties want ever-increasing funds. Will he be able to comment on whether this should be reduced?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, his terms of reference certainly embrace that. The noble Lord's point is very important. There is state funding that can promote strong political activity of integrity at every level, including at local level. The stronger and more respected that political activity, the better for the health of our political system. We need to look not just at the issues of funding, for example, general elections, but of funding local activity in communities.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. Commons amendments
	16 Clause 5, page 4, line 44, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	22 Clause 8, page 7, line 42, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 but propose Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu.
	22E Page 7, line 38, after "accompanies" insert "or includes"
	22F Page 7, line 43, leave out from "manner" to the end and insert "ensure that an application to be issued with such a card accompanies or is included"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu.
	Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F were agreed by the other place on Thursday 16 March by a majority of 51 votes. They are technical amendments to Clause 8, which makes it clear that an application for an identity card must include or accompany one to be entered on the national identity register. I will also seek to persuade your Lordships not to accept Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, which would amend Motion A by adding Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H, which would delay the proposed automatic linkage between designated documents and identity cards so that it would apply only to applications made after 31 December 2011.
	I will explain first why we believe that the amending Motion is not the helpful compromise which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, intended it to be or which he may suggest it is to this House, but would do little more than reinstate Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, which would unpick the linkage between designated documents and identity cards, albeit for a limited time rather than indefinitely. I remind the House that we have debated these issues several times, but this issue has now been in three Bills and, if the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, found favour, we would have had the joy of discussing it in three Parliaments.
	The noble Lord's Motion would mean that we would have to delay the requirement for applicants for designated documents to be registered and to obtain an identity card until the end of 2011—that is, after any new election. Although we might not expect to phase in the introduction of identity cards to all categories of passport applicants straight away, any constraint on designation would create uncertainties in our planning and would risk incurring additional costs. First, in line with other EU countries, we expect to start issuing biometric British passports that include fingerprints by 2009. Without the requirement for recipients of designated documents, such as biometric passports, to register on the national identity register and be issued with an identity card, we would have to provide for two alternative processes with separate records for those who chose to register and those who chose not to register. I am not saying that such processes would not be technically feasible, but such a purely artificial deadline would create real problems for the phasing of the scheme, all of which would be bound to impact on costs—something about which this House purported to have a great deal of concern.
	Linking the issue of fingerprint biometric passports with identity cards makes sense and is the basis of the Government's planning for rolling out the identity card scheme as people renew their existing identity documents. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, anyone who feels strongly enough about this linkage not to want to be issued with an identity card in this initial phase will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new one before the designation order takes effect. However, I doubt whether very many people would want to avoid the opportunity of obtaining an identity card when their passport is renewed.
	The House has focused very much on the impact on people applying for passports, but we are also likely to start issuing biometric resident permits to those foreign nationals temporarily resident here around the same time, in 2008 or 2009. Again, without the requirement for designation and registration on the national identity register, foreign nationals could opt out of the scheme and we would be forced to maintain separate records for those who opt in and those who opt out of the register. If in the initial stage registration was optional, there would be extra costs, even if this lasted only two or three years.
	There would also be delays, not only in British passport-holders being registered but also in foreign nationals being included on the national identity register. A change in the way in which the scheme is to be phased in would require considerable reworking of the current identity cards business plan and procurement strategy. This would create further delay in the programme and so could add to costs.
	I could go on about the details but we now have the same argument for the fourth time. The Government say that the link should be made—and made now—with certainty and clarity so that procurement can go on. Members opposite say no; they want delay, they want procrastination and they want to put it off until after the next election. Members of the other place have had the advantage of thinking about this on three occasions. On a previous occasion when they discussed this, the vote against your Lordships' position was 33; it is now 51. On the previous occasion I indicated that I believed the voices in the other place would get louder. We now have a cacophony coming from them of "No", "No" and "No" again. They were asked to consider again and they have considered again.
	We are asking now for this House, having done its duty with such diligence and care, to determine that its proper function is to review, amend and suggest. The proper function of the other House, holding the mandate of the people of this country, is in the end to decide. Its Members will pay the price of that decision when the next election comes about; we, on our comfortable Benches, will not.
	There are those who think that this Parliament should be unicameral. I would not like this House to give them any more basis for suggesting that that would be a good move.
	We come to a position where I have to entreat the House to use its normal wisdom—something that I hope your Lordships brought into the Chamber today—and to decide that now, if not the previous occasion, is the appropriate time to let the other House have its way and bow, as we must, to their mandate.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we know full well that last Wednesday we debated all this and that the Commons threw us over on Thursday. The Minister may agree with me when she talks about the long consideration given by the other place to this Bill, that they were allowed one hour precisely last Thursday and one hour on the previous occasion when they threw us over. Given the importance of this Bill I do not think that that is a satisfactory amount of time for the other place to consider the very deliberate views of this place.
	On Thursday the Home Secretary said:
	"A general election is a pretty important part of the relationship between the individual and the state".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/06; col. 1643.]
	That is our point. It is not necessary to be a slave to manifestos to accord them considerable weight, especially where they concern such a basic civic issue as root-and-branch change in the law of privacy as it will be implemented in this Bill.
	Recommendation 7 of the Wakeham commission report, also quoted by Mr Clarke, states that the Government's,
	"general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber".
	That too is why we persist; not to wreck or undermine but to get the Government to respect their plain commitment to voluntary ID cards at the stage when passports are renewed.
	On Thursday Mr Clarke raised the issue of the extra cost attending our compromise amendment, which the Minister referred to today. The Home Secretary, apparently without irony, berated us for denying the public,
	"the most cost-effective option in implementing a scheme".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/06; col. 1646.]
	Yet here is a Government who, against a barrage of criticism from all quarters—in the House and outside it—refused point blank to give us any reasonable estimates. Estimates for setting up costs and integration came there none. The excuse of commercial sensitivity was unsupported inside or, as far as I am aware, outside the House. I believe that that sensitivity was political.
	Constitutional proprieties cut both ways. It is fruitless to pretend that the post-1998 conventions are entirely clear. I reiterate that we, on this side of the House, do not accept the premise that if we stick to our guns on this issue we are behaving improperly or in a manner destined to damage the unwritten constitution, let alone in a wrecking spirit. Rather, we say, these are exceptional circumstances and not just because we are holding the Government to their plain commitment.
	I am unaware of any non-governmental, non-industry body of opinion in this country that is in favour of compulsion. Liberty, NO2ID cards, and Justice are among the numerous respected bodies implacably opposed to compulsory ID cards. It is also the case that effective compulsion vis-à-vis designated passports represents a volte-face less than a year after the election—a volte-face the Government deny is happening.
	Furthermore, I repeat, I believe that we are striking a blow for public trust in politics. If this Government can railroad this Bill through Parliament in the manner in which they are now trying to do, replete with double-speak and denial, it will be a bad day for this House and this Parliament. But we are not just sticking to our guns; having felt a zephyr of change—if I can call it that—on the Cross Benches last time, and in a genuine spirit of compromise, we have tabled this amending Motion today to allow the political parties, particularly Labour, to go to the country at the next general election, making it absolutely clear where they stand.
	The delay to the end of 2011 is scarcely catastrophic, given that in any event ID cards will not be issued until 2009. Furthermore, it should enable clarification of some of the many uncertainties—the universal uncertainty, one could say—attending this grandiose project, which would be of great benefit. Not least, it would enable the public to catch up to speed with this Bill and its ramifications. If the Home Secretary himself does not understand his own Bill—and he demonstrated that again last week by continuing to pretend that the database for passports is the same as the database for ID cards—delay can do nothing but good.
	This is a citizens' amendment. There will be extra costs from it—but not unacceptable ones, I suggest, as was confirmed to me over the weekend by a very senior industry expert and by the LSE Identity Project, whose members did a short ancillary report on the potential cost implications, which I will place in the Library. To give noble Lords a flavour, I shall quote from that document:
	"In conclusion, the government has argued that provisions such as that in the Phillips amendment would be too costly because it would involve two databases operating at a minimal level, one for passports and one for voluntary ID cards. This issue can be resolved in a cost-effective and simple way by enrolling voluntary ID applicants onto the passport database and then issuing an ID card without the passport".
	And there is a lot more where that came from.
	Finally, the key issues here are the sort of society and state that we want. I suggest that we heed the warnings, not only from our own Constitution Committee, but also from the Information Commissioner, our national watchdog on issues precisely such as these. This is a tipping point, and I urge noble Lords once again to stand firm behind the principle of voluntarism, albeit for a limited period of five years. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "disagreement" to end and insert "and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu, but do propose Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H in lieu.—(Lord Phillips of Sudbury.)

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as far as I am concerned this has nothing whatever to do with party politics at this stage. I hope that your Lordships listened with some care to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on this Motion, which proposes that in the present circumstances the right thing for your Lordships' House is to say to the other place that this Bill has become increasingly controversial. The public are increasingly worried; it would be an excellent idea if compulsion did not take place until after the next general election. This is the best amendment that we have had during these recent proceedings. It is absolutely practical and democratic.
	We know from the polls—and I suspect that most of your Lordships will know from personal experience—that the public, as they hear more about the meaning for them of being on the register, are getting worried. They are beginning to understand what the Bill means for them. I said at Second Reading that I thought the public would eventually be very worried about being on the register, and I am sure that they are getting more worried now. The Guardian was right this morning to say that your Lordships' House should stand firm. Looking at the amendment and given the present circumstances, I hope that we will vote for it. That is the right thing to do and the House of Commons would be wise indeed to accept that.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I want to speak to this amending Motion and, first, to confirm something that I said in the debate last week. I had not intended to speak but spoke from memory about the Parliament Act. I was asked afterwards whether what I had said was correct. I have re-checked and confirmed that this Bill, if it were to be passed under the Parliament Act, would be the first major manifesto or programme Bill to be thus dealt with since 1949—and, in some readings, since 1914. I will not go through the history of the Parliament Act, but that is the seriousness of the decision which your Lordships' House—including the Official Opposition—will have to take if we can find no compromise. Motion A1 goes much further than the Parliament Act and, in a way, compounds the importance of the issue.

Lord Waddington: Oh yes he did, my Lords. He quoted example after example where the Parliament Act had been used only when there was a free vote on the issue before the House. I remind the noble Lord of the War Crimes Bill, which I remember clearly because I had to speak for the government from the Front Bench. On that occasion, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead made a most spirited speech from the Liberal Benches, in which he said that it was nonsense to say that the Parliament Act should be used when there was a free vote; that the only legitimate case for the use of the Parliament Act was when there was an issue of great party-political moment between the government and the Opposition; that the Parliament Act was originally passed to resolve a government policy matter of great moment; and that it was wrong for it to be used in any other circumstances. So you pays your money and you takes your choice. My personal view is that the Parliament Act can be used in either circumstance, as is appropriate.

Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord had waited, I was going to say that this House certainly has the power to force the use of the Parliament Act. It is there to deliver the primacy of the Commons. I also said—and it is a matter of fact and is nothing to do with free votes—that if we used the Parliament Act on this Bill, it would be the first major manifesto programme Bill passed under the Parliament Act since 1949. In fact the noble Lord was actually agreeing with me.
	I should point out that there have been three votes on this issue—once on Report, and twice during ping-pong. The most interesting aspect of those votes, apart from the fact that the government Benches consistently outvoted the Conservative Benches on each occasion, was the Cross-Bench vote—three to one against the Government on Report; three to one against them in the first ping-pong vote; and last week 24 Contents and 25 Not-Contents. It seems that at least some Cross-Benchers are beginning to think that enough is enough. Is the same thought occurring to some former Members of the Commons who are sitting opposite—former Leaders, Chief Whips, Cabinet Ministers and others?
	Today's amending Motion goes much further than the Parliament Act in the delay that it will provide for. There would be three Parliaments and two general elections before this part of the Bill could become law. In fact the delay is much longer. It would be better for the Government to force the use of the Parliament Act, because they would get the Bill that they wanted much quicker.
	No government are supposed to incur any public expense on a measure in a Bill until that Bill receives a Second Reading in the Commons, which would be the case if this Bill were accepted. Would the Government be right to spend all the money they needed to on planning, IT work and the rest if there was a possibility that the Bill could be repealed if the Conservatives won the next election? Is that a correct use of public funds?
	A convention of this House, which is at least as important as the Salisbury convention, states that the elected government are entitled to have their business considered without unreasonable delay. That is linked with the other convention that the primacy of the Commons, as expressed through the Parliament Act, should finally prevail. This Motion drives a coach and horses through both conventions.
	The whole debate we have had on this—the three rounds of ping pong—underlines the importance of the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the relationship between the two Houses.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I do not know where the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has been canvassing opinion when she says that identity cards are becoming less popular. I took the opportunity this weekend of canvassing opinion at Tynecastle Park, where there was a large number of people. We were there for other purposes but, in quiet moments, I took the opportunity of discussing identity cards. I know it may seem a little eccentric, but I got some very positive responses to this issue.
	The astonishing intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, was the most compelling argument in favour of identity cards that I have heard in this whole debate. With no disrespect to the Minister, or anyone on these Benches, it was a powerful intervention. It also reminded me that, when the Tories were elected, it was probably not the specific wording in their manifesto that convinced the electorate, but those wonderful posters that turned the tide. What was the name of the company that produced them?
	My real point is in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who I got to know extremely well on the Joint Committee on the Charities Bill when I was in the Commons. I developed great respect and admiration for his ingenuity and cleverness. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, have said, "This is a compromise; this is something new". Let us be straightforward and honest about exactly what is happening. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being party political—I have been even accused of being party-political since I came in here—it is perfectly respectable but we ought to be open about it.
	Over the past few weeks, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, using his ingenuity, has come up with Motion D1, then Motion A1, then another Motion A1. Over the weekend, by some process of osmosis, suddenly the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, thinks, "Hey, that's a good idea. I'll get all my forces, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to support that wonderful amending Motion". So we had Motion A1, then another Motion A1. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said he would support it on this occasion. I say to the noble Viscount that this will go back to the House of Commons, which will say no even more resoundingly. Next time we meet, I can guarantee that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will come up with an even more ingenious amendment. Then we will be faced with yet another opportunity. That is not the reality of what is happening. The reality is that the Liberal Democrats in particular—supported, to some extent, for other reasons, by the Tories—have always wanted to completely scupper this Bill. They have looked for opportunity after opportunity and they will continue to do so. The sooner non-political people here realise what is going on in the political parties, the better.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, will the Minister explain why it is not a compromise between "may" and "must" to say that you must in the future, but that for the next five years, you may. That is obviously a compromise.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it was indeed mentioned in the manifesto, and how was it mentioned? It was mentioned as voluntary, not compulsory.
	I have a complete sense of the superiority of the other place. I think we are lucky to be here at all, and we try to do a good job. We are subservient to the elected House. However, when I see the elected House coming to this place and saying to the country that that manifesto commitment does not mean voluntary, it means compulsory or quasi-compulsory, then I believe—and I hope that noble Lords will not think I am being pompous—that we have a duty to say, "No, it doesn't". Surely noble Lords will accept that we live in times when the public's sense of the probity and honour of the Houses of Parliament is not at its highest. Issues are swirling around—I am certainly not going to make political capital of them—that are causing great angst within this Palace and beyond. I have stuck to my guns principally because I think it thoroughly disreputable and, I am afraid to say, dishonest of us to pretend that "voluntary" meant "compulsory".
	This amendment is not the sort of cosmetic amendment that the Commons put back to us; this is a genuine amendment. I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this would take the matter beyond the Parliament Act. Of course that is so. We are trying to reach a compromise that will mean that the Government will not exercise the Parliament Act. However, as many have said, the first ID card is not to be issued until, on best estimates, 2009. We know jolly well what happens in this country when huge computer schemes are put before us. We also know why we have never been told the costs. It would be the greatest stone about any government's neck to dare to estimate the setting-up and integration costs of this uniquely massive scheme.
	I shall not weary your Lordships any more, except to say that I am extremely grateful for the contributions of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. I am only too happy to put heads together with him if we get this vote through today; there will be no chance to do so if we do not. I do not pretend that this is the best amendment available, but I sincerely and genuinely tabled this as a compromise amendment. The issues that underlie it are of great purport and importance. We are at a tipping point. The surveillance and compulsion being thrust little by little and drip by drip on the public of this country need to stop. This is it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Earl Peel: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 128 and speaking to Amendment No. 129, perhaps I shall be allowed to go back a little. Clause 44 gives various enforcement powers to the new pesticide inspectors who are charged with enforcing the new pesticides offence under Clause 43. In Committee, the Government accepted that their initial idea of giving these new pesticide inspectors the power to enter premises to ascertain whether an offence had been committed was disproportionate. Accordingly, the Minister introduced an amendment requiring pesticide inspectors to have reasonable grounds to suspect that he may find evidence of the offence before entering. Clause 51 and Schedule 5 significantly extend the powers of wildlife inspectors, in the same way as Clause 44 gave powers to the new pesticide inspectors, so I see no logical reason why wildlife inspectors should not be subjected to the same constraints as the Government have put on pesticide inspectors.
	I moved an amendment in Committee to that effect and, although the wording was slightly different, the intention was precisely the same. The Minister objected to that amendment on the grounds that the criminal investigation function, as opposed to the licence monitoring function, which are both the responsibility of wildlife inspectors, are so closely linked that they cannot be separated. I find that hard to believe, so I am looking for an assurance that wildlife inspectors will not go on what are known as "fishing trips" when dealing with wildlife crimes, as opposed to carrying out their duties under the licensing enforcement—which I appreciate is a totally different matter. Furthermore, I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate clearly how the wildlife inspector's role will work in relation to the police when dealing with wildlife crimes. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl's amendments are similar, so I shall deal with them together.
	Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 seek to introduce a requirement for a wildlife inspector to have grounds for suspecting that he may find there evidence that an offence is being, or has been, committed on premises before exercising powers to enter and inspect those premises. The noble Earl has made it clear, on this occasion and previously, that he has no desire to restrict wildlife inspectors when exercising their powers in relation to licences and registrations. However, it is not a simple case of separating out the powers of wildlife inspectors into those which deal specifically with licences and those which do not. That is because all the powers under Sections 18B(1) and 18D(1) have relevance to an inspector's ability effectively to monitor licences.
	For example, if we look at the powers in relation to group 1 offences, Section 18B(1)(a) is needed to ensure that we can monitor situations where no licence has been applied for, where activities may be outside the scope of a licence—for example, where they are outside the licence purpose—or where we need to monitor whether licence conditions are being complied with.
	It is important to remember that the breach of a licence condition is not in itself an offence under the 1981 Act; rather, the breach may mean that the person concerned cannot rely on the licence that he has obtained because he is not within its terms. Therefore, when wildlife inspectors are entering land for the purpose of checking compliance with licences, the relevant offence which may have been committed will be that in the substantive provisions—for example, an offence under Section 1, which deals with killing wild birds. This is one of the reasons why Section 18B(1)(a) has been so drafted. Section 18B(1)(b)(i) is needed so that we can verify licence applications, and Section 18B(1)(b)(ii) is needed so that we can check licensed activities where the licence itself has expired to ensure that any licence condition has been complied with.
	It will not always be the case that breach of a licence condition after the licence has expired will be a breach of the substantive provision to which the licence relates. Entry could therefore not always be obtained in these circumstances under Section 18B(1)(a)—hence the need for this separate power.
	Let me give an example in practice, where a licence has been obtained to destroy a sand martin habitat. One of the conditions of that licence may be to replace the restored habitat. It is important that the replacement habitat is maintained and not simply destroyed just a few months after the licence has expired. Under Section 18B1(b)(ii), wildlife inspectors would be able to gain entry to land after the expiry of the original licence to ensure that the replacement habitat condition to which the licence was subject has been complied with.
	The same reasoning applies in relation to group 2 offences and the powers set out in Section 18D. In all these cases, an offence may not have been committed and one may not be suspected. The inspector is therefore not expecting to find evidence of an offence. He is, in effect, randomly inspecting to see that the conditions of licences are being fulfilled.
	I should also mention that the proposed powers in Schedule 5 are consistent with the wording of the current powers of wildlife inspectors, which are set out in Section 19ZA of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and which were introduced by the CROW Act 2000. Perhaps I can illustrate this by a specific example. Under Section 19ZA(3)(a) of the 1981 Act, a wildlife inspector can enter and inspect any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence under Section 6, Section 9(5) or Section 13(2) is being, or has been, committed on those premises. Although under the Bill these become group 2 offences and the power will be found in the new Section 18D(1)(a) of the 1981 Act, the power itself remains unchanged. It is this power that Amendment No. 129 seeks to restrict. I remind the House that the power has existed for five years and there is no evidence that it is being abused.
	The powers of the wildlife inspectors under the Bill depend on whether the offence is group 1 or group 2. Group 1 offences deal mainly with animals, birds and plants that are found in the wild and of which it is rare for any person to have possession or control. These offences relate to Sections 1, 5, 9(1), 9(2), 9(4), 11, 13(1) and 14ZA of the 1981 Act. Wildlife inspectors currently have no enforcement powers for these offences. Group 2 offences may relate to licensing of captive, ringed and registered birds and the sale of certain animals and plants, and are found in other sections of the 1981 Act. Wildlife inspectors already have enforcement powers in relation to those offences under the 1981 Act. These powers remain largely unchanged by the Bill.
	We fully recognise that the Bill seeks to extend the powers of wildlife inspectors to deal with group 1 offences and four other Acts. However, as I have explained, we believe that such powers are needed to allow a wildlife inspector to effectively monitor licences. I want to make it abundantly clear on the record that the role of a wildlife inspector is not the general enforcement of wildlife laws. That role is performed quite rightly by the police, so if there is suspicion of an offence per se, in the normal circumstances it would be for the police to investigate, not a wildlife inspector. Wildlife inspectors are involved in the enforcement of activities in connection with licences and registration.
	If, during a routine inspection, a wildlife inspector found evidence of an offence, the matter would be referred to the police or Defra investigation services, who are fully trained to carry out criminal investigations. I can give the noble Earl the assurance that he seeks in the strongest possible terms: wildlife inspectors will not engage in fishing trips, but will undertake visits for legitimate reasons in connection with licensing and registration. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for going so carefully through the reasons why the Government have come forward with their amendment and I will try and do the same with ours, because obviously there was a disagreement over where these criteria for national parks should be. I have again listened carefully to what he has said, but we still have serious reservations and oppose his Amendment No. 131 in favour of our Amendment No. 132. At the beginning I would like to put on record—again—that we support national parks. There has been a view that perhaps we are a party that does not believe in or support national parks. The Minister is shaking his head. Quite rightly, he knows that is not true, but, in case anybody following this discussion later on should be in any doubt, I would like to clarify that before I start.
	I believe that in 1947 the Hobhouse report came before Parliament. Two years later, the 1949 Act was passed through the House. For whatever reason, the criteria it contained were not included on the face of the Bill. The Minister may want to comment on that. The fact that farmed and managed land has been included in our national parks without challenge is, in fact, a strength of the present arrangement as this has been done in a voluntary fashion.
	I turn now to my Amendments Nos. 132 and 170. Noble Lords will be aware of the substance of my first amendment on criteria for the designation of national parks. Amendment No. 170 goes very well with Amendment No. 132 as it is to do with the terminology "natural beauty" and probes the Government's precise meaning of that phrase. I have to say I was disappointed in Committee; first, that we were not given the proper opportunity to debate the government amendment, which has changed subtly since then. Secondly, I was surprised to see that the crucial clause on the definition of natural beauty was moved, as the noble Lord has acknowledged today, by accident, without a proper debate, but is still to be included in the Bill. I believe it is only fair to put on record that the whole process of the debate on national parks has been a disgrace. We asked for a Committee session in lieu of the failure to have a proper debate on this topic in Committee, but I was told that this would not be tenable. This has left us in a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. As a consequence, if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to, Members in another place will not have debated the national park criteria at all.
	Our Amendment No. 132 is very clear. It seeks to clarify, once and for all, the criteria for the designation of national parks and to ensure that they are not widened by the latest suggestion from the Government. Amendment No. 170 backs that up by tightening the definition of natural beauty. In Committee, the Minister took care to state that when it comes to the designation of national parks:
	"The intention, and the current practice, is that wildlife and cultural heritage considerations are factored into the natural beauty assessment rather than being free-standing tests in their own right".—[Official Report, 27/2/06; col. 79.]
	In which case, I wonder why the newly drafted criteria are quite so ambiguous, and further, why, when natural beauty is so central to the designation of national parks, it has a separate definition tucked away at the back of the Bill under miscellaneous provisions.
	I am glad that we now have the opportunity to debate these new measures fully. The approach to natural beauty during the debate and via amendments on this Bill has been confusing, to say the very least. The 1949 Act places reasons of "natural beauty", "opportunities . . . for open-air recreation" and the situation regarding "centres of population" on a level playing field. That is what has worked for the past 60 years or so, until the Meyrick case.
	Yet proposed new subsection (2A) in the Government's amendment would expand that definition of natural beauty by allowing Natural England to consider "wildlife and cultural heritage" as part of that. The addition of "wildlife" is, at best, nominal. "Natural beauty" has already been extended to include flora and fauna in Section 114 of the Countryside Act 1968. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he intends to achieve by including "wildlife" into a natural beauty clause. Likewise, "cultural heritage" has no clear meaning in the context of natural beauty. It is not defined anywhere else in this Bill.
	Clause 97 ensures that even if land is used for agriculture or woodlands or has an area whose flora, fauna or physiographical features are partly the product of a human intervention in the landscape, it could still be treated as being naturally beautiful. Even if it is not naturally beautiful—if, say, the designators are considering Anglo-Saxon burial grounds in the South Downs—it can still be treated as being an area of natural beauty. That land must simply not fall outside the criteria in Clause 97(a) to (c), and could, under existing proposals, be designated as a national park. If that is so, it is hard to imagine any of our countryside that would not come under any of those criteria.
	Our Amendment No. 170 seeks not only to tie in with the suggestion for clearer national park designation criteria, but to follow the legally tried-and-tested opinion of the judge in the Meyrick case, who stated that the current law requires the inclusion in the criteria of,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	That is quite clear. The judge used the wording of the New Forest landscape assessor, who while acknowledging that none of our landscape was perfectly pristine, stated that the,
	"terms of the Act must require a high degree of relative naturalness".
	The proposed government amendment to the criteria would rewrite the legal basis for the designation of national parks. It is a change to the 60 year-old legislation, with little or no consultation. Indeed, I understand that the Council for National Parks, the Association of National Park Authorities and the Countryside Agency have been consulted, but surely the Minister and the Government must recognise that consultation must be wider than those three bodies, who stand to benefit most from the widening of the criteria—a question which has not been answered.
	A landscape no longer has to afford the differences at the present, as in the 1949 Act, but can be assessed on its future potential for recreation. I quote the Government's amendment that seeks to,
	"take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities",
	to promote open-air recreation. That is not limited to the present.
	To take a case in point, the deadline for public objection to the designation of the South Downs as a national park was 1 March 2003. Now that the criteria may change, either way, will the Minister reassure the House that the objection process will be opened up again to enable the public to respond accordingly to the new terms? In the light of the pitfalls facing national parks at present, it seems odd that the Government are willing to rush into widening the designation.
	We heard on 3 February that the Lake District will sadly have to close its information centres owing to a shortfall in the funds and a lack of increase in the authority which it was expecting. There has also been a recent fund freezing for Exmoor National Park, and what is more, the future of the national park funding from the Environment Stewardship Schemes looks unpromising following the agreed cuts in the ERDP budget at the end of the last year.
	There are many other issues I could cover, but I hope I have laid out fairly clearly, for all noble Lords to understand, why we are bringing forward our amendment as opposed to accepting the Government's amendments. I understand that the Minister has said that indeed they have the right to appeal and that has been granted, but I believe it is up to Parliament to make this decision. This subject is complex, both in the way that it comes up in legislation and the range of interests that are affected by national park land. Let me say as I close that it is our intention to preserve the very best of our landscapes by using both areas of outstanding natural beauty and national park status. That can be done by applying them in a way that gives due consideration to the relative qualities and needs of our landscape.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before speaking to this amendment I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks.
	I believe that the legislation has served us very well since 1949. When we debated the proposals in the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and then under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, I do not recall that we questioned whether the criteria were right. I think we accepted that the criteria were adequate at that point. We debated a great many issues, but the criteria were not among them.
	I support the government amendments. My worry with Amendment No. 132, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is the question of where in England we could find,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	I do not know Wales and Scotland so well, but perhaps it is possible to find areas there that can display,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	However, I think that it would be the absolute nail in the coffin for the designation of any more national parks or AONBs in England. Looking at the areas I know best, such as the Holnicote estate on Exmoor—I will not take up your Lordships' time by listing them all—I can think of none that displays,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	They are all very much man-made areas.
	The Liberal Democrats will therefore be supporting the government amendments on the basis that the provisions have served us well. As for consultation, I believe that consultation has happened through the updating under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It was, of course, the Meyrick judgment which changed the designation issue. When changes are made in that way, absolutely no consultation takes place. Nevertheless these debates have enabled us to air the issues. However, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in being puzzled that Clause 97 is dealt with under miscellaneous provisions rather than in this part of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why.
	Finally, on the funding issue, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that it would be tremendous to see always increasing funding for national parks. Realistically, however, the funding levels achieved over the past six years have meant a substantial increase since 1997. While I absolutely accept that several parks have issues about how to deal with all of the pressures with such funding, I do not believe there is a case for asking for greater funding across-the-board for national parks. Exactly how the common agricultural policy is to work out for less favoured areas—upland areas, in particular—will be a critical matter. That does not apply only to areas in national parks, it applies across the board. On funding, that is the sort of area that concerns me regardless of whether it is in a national park.

Earl Peel: My Lords, while supporting my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 132 and 170, I take this opportunity to oppose as strongly as I can government Amendment No. 131 to the 1949 national park Act. In my opinion—and I am sorry to use these words—this is no more than a crude and brazen attempt by the Government to widen the criteria for national park designation. As my noble friend said, that has been done without any proper national consultation whatever. It has profound implications for future designations of national parks and indeed for extensions to existing park boundaries.
	The Minister pointed out when moving his amendment that before any new national park could be designated it would require a public inquiry. I accept that. Yet the public inquiry and the decisions that are made will be based on the legislation. If the legislation is changed, then those given that task will clearly have to take that into consideration. So I simply say how much better would it have been if the Government had simply acknowledged that fact and stopped trying to pretend that this is a mere tidying-up operation to help clarify a rather vague and esoteric misunderstanding that happened to lead to a clear judgment against them. As I said, in my view this is a deliberate attempt to widen the designation criteria for national park status. One consequence of that will undoubtedly be the upgrading of the South Downs AONB, despite the fact that such a move has already failed three times. The Minister said that no decision had been made on the South Downs AONB. A decision was not reached because the proposal was rejected three times. For very good reasons; it did not qualify.
	As I said in Committee, I found it deeply unsatisfactory and indeed—and I speak for many others in this respect—discourteous that such a profound change in legislation should be introduced at such a late stage of a Bill in your Lordships' House when the other place has not had the opportunity of giving it the high level of scrutiny that it deserves. The Government continually remind your Lordships that it is our duty to bend to the supremacy of the elected Chamber, yet here we find them bringing in significant legislation that the other place will not have had an effective means of scrutinising.
	The fact that the judgment on the Meyrick case came after the Bill had left the Commons is, to my way of thinking, quite irrelevant. Such a fundamental change in law should require it to go out to full consultation to all the stakeholders whom the Government are always so keen to get involved in such matters and then to come back at a later stage—even with a separate Bill, if needs be—when all relevant interests have been fully considered. I am bound to say that this is yet another example of the Government treating the countryside in a pretty shoddy way.
	I turn to the amendment itself. Clearly, the amendments that the Government are proposing to the amendment they tabled to the 1949 Act in Committee place the words "wildlife" and "cultural heritage" as being subsidiary to the existing requirement for natural beauty, which has itself been substantially widened by Clause 97. None the less, that overturns the High Court decision in the Meyrick case, when the judge confirmed that these were irrelevant considerations in designating national parks. Furthermore, the fact that cultural heritage is not defined in the Act further confuses the matter.
	The amendment under subsection (2A) to the open-air recreation criterion in the 1949 Act now includes the phrase:
	"take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities"
	for open-air recreation. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, that could apply to virtually any land and would certainly embrace all of the existing AONBs. Furthermore, I believe it undermines the special nature of the existing national parks.
	From Addison, Dower and Hobhouse to Sandford and Edwards, there remains a common theme—that national parks should be very special areas, wild, beautiful and suitable for public access at the time of designation. The Government clearly want to undermine that principle. To illustrate that further, current government guidance on national parks also emphasises the importance of wildness. It states:
	"Particular emphasis should be placed on identifying those qualities associated with their wide open spaces, and the wilderness and tranquillity which are to be found within them".
	As I said, however, the Government maintain that they are simply attempting to clarify the law so as to fit in with their interpretation of the existing legislation before the Meyrick judgment. The truth is that, in 2000, the Countryside Agency tried to redefine the law by introducing a new policy on the designation criteria, without any consultation, and it was found wanting. So instead of going quietly, the Government are introducing legislation of national importance to comply with the judgment—and to the best of my knowledge, the only body that has been consulted is the Council for National Parks. Well, there's a surprise.
	There seems to be a view that the creation of a national park automatically results in a widespread echo of approval across the land. It is important not to forget that those whose real homes are in the park, and those who work in those areas, do not always share that euphoria. Designation means higher visitor pressure. It means extra constraints. It means a diminution of local democratic accountability. There are extra red tape and burdens on local businesses and communities, and a local house price distortion in favour of outside purchasers clambering for the distinction of having accommodation in a national park. Indeed, experience shows that in national parks starter homes are few and far between because of the inherent nature of restrictive planning policies. We must be under no illusion. Whereas national park status gives credit to the special nature of the landscape—well, it should do—it always delivers additional constraints to those who wish to make their living there, and such a designation is not always as welcome as some might think.
	One further point needs addressing. I have tried to stress that the imposition of a national park designation has profound implications for those who live and work in such areas. However, perhaps we should ask, in contrast, what additional benefits will accrue to the general public from any further national park designations. When national parks were first designated, we lived in a very different world from the one that we live in today. Today, the countryside is littered with a variety of new designations. We have SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and the like. There are government grants for an array of land management schemes—we have entry level 1, entry level 2, and the CAP has moved away from production subsidies to support for land management. That is all good stuff—I love it. There are conservation sites and heritage sites, and the CROW Act offers access opportunities to all open country, with provisions for the Government to extend such areas when deemed appropriate. So can the Minister please tell me exactly what benefits will accrue to the general public should an AONB, for example, be upgraded to a national park? It is incumbent on the Government to spell out in some detail just what benefits will accrue to the public given the additional cost that will be incurred and the diminution of democratic accountability suffered by the local community with the Secretary of State appointing so many non-democratically elected members of a national park board.
	These are hugely important issues and I do not believe they can be taken lightly. Given the nature of the amendment, a strong body of opinion feels that the Government should withdraw it and come back another day with a clear conscience in the knowledge that the job has been done properly. I know that that is not likely, and in the mean time I have great pleasure in supporting the two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford. To my way of thinking, they are at least akin to the original designation criteria.

Lord Bach: My Lords, this has been a passionate and very good debate. Emotions run high on this issue. There is a real difference of opinion here and it is much better to acknowledge that than to pretend there is none. I will try to pick up one or two of the questions before concluding my remarks: Why is Clause 97 in Part 9, headed "Miscellaneous"? Because it covers wider issues than those dealt with in Part 5, headed "National Parks and the Broads". Clause 97 covers the definition of natural beauty for nature reserves, AONBs and SSSIs. That is why it is placed where it is in the Bill.
	We believe we are restoring the law to what we and others believed it to be before the Meyrick judgment. We are not trying to change the criteria from what we believed them to be before the Meyrick judgement. That is the basis upon which my amendment, Amendment No. 131, is laid. I know that there is some concern—great concern in some quarters—that this has not been debated in the elected Chamber. That is right, it has not been. As the noble Earl acknowledged himself, however, the Meyrick judgment was post the transfer of the Bill from the Commons to this House. It would have been impossible for that to have happened, if this were to be part of the Bill.
	The noble Earl also asked what additional benefits to the public there would be with any new national parks. The South Downs is the last area referred to in Hobhouse that is still outstanding. National parks have two purposes. One is the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and so on, and the other is the promotion, understanding and enjoyment of natural beauty. AONBs have just one purpose—the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. In our view, AONBs do not provide the same opportunities for outdoor informal recreation as do national parks.
	The noble Baroness properly asked why the Hobhouse criterion was not included in the 1949 Act. The Act needed to be flexible in general and did not need to go into detail. She also asked why the new criteria are ambiguous. The meaning of "natural beauty" is not expanded; it simply clarifies what we already understand it to mean. The word "wildlife" is in our amendment as it helps to determine how landscape is formed. The term "cultural heritage" simply reflects how man has helped to shape landscape through the ages. I would argue that the existing national parks have strongly reflected that in practice, but I remind the House that inquiries have to be held in considering new designations. I was asked whether the objection process would be open to the public over the new terms for the South Downs. This could well result in the reopening of the inquiry, and the inquiry inspector will consider what needs to be asked of interested parties.
	I turn to Amendment No. 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I do not think that the noble Baroness would disagree that it would have the effect of putting the Meyrick interpretation unambiguously into primary legislation. With regard to natural beauty, it would specify that only the physical beauty of the land would be considered and that it would need to have a high degree of relative naturalness. The noble Baroness suggested that it was clear what that meant, but I disagree with her. I agree that the expression used is too restrictive, but what does,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness",
	mean? That phrase is not defined but I assume that it is intended to remove parkland, dairy farms and any other well maintained farmland from national parks. It would also exclude wildlife and cultural heritage considerations—factors which contribute to the landscapes that we all cherish and which, as I have shown, were certainly considered eligible for inclusion in the 11 national parks designated immediately after the 1949 Act.
	Amendment No. 132 would also narrow the second criterion for designation—namely, the opportunities which the land affords for open-air recreation. It seeks to restrict that only to opportunities which the land affords "at the present time"—a phrase which I take to refer to the time that the assessment of a given piece of land is carried out. That could exclude potentially suitable land just because, for example, it did not happen to have a voluntary access agreement in place when the assessment was made and it might preclude the taking into account of the reasonably foreseeable fruits of a national park authority's role in promoting such agreements. What of rights of way that were in very poor condition at the time of the assessment? Would that mean that opportunities were not in evidence "at the present time"? It is inherent in the word "opportunities" that an appropriate degree of looking to the future was intended by the 1949 Act. That point was accepted by both sides—claimants and judge—in the Meyrick judgment. In our opinion, Amendment No. 132 seeks to go well beyond the Meyrick judgment in narrowing the designation criteria for national parks.
	As I have said, the Government's amendment, when read together with our new Clause 47, and those of the loyal Opposition offer two quite different visions of national parks. The Government's amendments offer a continuation of previous policies in which national parks contain a mix of land types offering a range of recreational experiences. The contrary vision offered by the Meyrick judgment and Amendments Nos. 132 and 170 is that, in effect, national parks should be a much more exclusive concept. Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with those who have said that it is hard to see any way in which national parks could now be created and that they would perhaps be difficult to find in the UK, being made up only of land which is wild and relatively untouched by man and where there is already a high level of access for public recreation. I hope that, of the two alternatives which have been set fairly before the House, your Lordships will prefer the Government's version.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I apologise because I realise that much of this was debated in Committee, but unfortunately I was indisposed and could not speak—literally. I had no voice at all at that time. But I want to make a firm statement on why we need to reform the membership of national parks in Wales and introduce directly elected members.
	I declare an interest as a trustee of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. With that in mind, noble Lords may realise what I am about to say. Nominees are not whiter than white, and elected people are far better. I shall give three examples of what has happened with nominees as members of a national park. First, I refer to a local government nominee. The member resided 60 miles from a national park boundary. He chaired the planning committee and, as chair, he gave a casting vote allowing planning permission to go ahead to permit an open-cast coal site to be developed against much local opposition. He lived 85 miles away from the community directly affected by that environmental degradation. In the following 15 years that continued. He created a precedent as there are more coal reserves beneath the adjoining land. I should point out that 20 per cent of Wales is national park—that is, one fifth.
	The second example concerns a Welsh Assembly Government appointee. He became chair of the strategy and policy committee, and chair of the working party within the national park that wrote the unitary development plan. He lived on the edge of a village; he owned land locally and, by stealth, got written into the development plan, a proposal to build 200 houses on his own land. He then "retired" from the park committee. Three adjoining community councils wanted only about six affordable homes in each village, and no more. The locals opposed the 200-house project and had no direct input into its inclusion in the local plan. Needless to say, the development proposed was twice the size of the existing village.
	The third example is of the chairman of a national park being on the board of a company—these are all nominated people—located outside the park that is involved in producing and extracting aggregates: sand and gravel. During his tenure, large reserves of gravel in a very sensitive river valley in the national park were earmarked for future extraction. The individual has now retired as chairman of the authority and the decision still stands. In all these cases declarations of interest were not transparent and, in some cases, only declared retrospectively, following public pressure. Indeed, research shows that the interests of national park members do not appear transparently in the case of any national park in England and Wales. I am sure the Minister will agree that all these appointed members have not worked in the best interests of the national park, in terms of the environment, communities or sustainability.
	Only democratic accountability, through direct election involving people who reside in the national park, will meet the needs of the people who live there. If the electorate elects a member to represent them, that community will be sensitively represented, and not sidelined, as some communities are when a few favourite centres are promoted to the detriment of others. I speak of one local authority, which is 130 miles long and has six adjoining authorities that have very little land in the park but are all represented to the exclusion of democratically elected people. The present system is subject to lobbying within local authorities and, at quango level, to people very often appointed in their own interests. They pursue agendas not necessarily in the local interest, and frequently ignore places in greatest need. The present situation in Wales, as far as representation is concerned, is not as good as that in England. At least in England parish councils can nominate a member to serve with approval on the national park; Welsh community councils do not have that opportunity. However, directly elected representatives are a much better option and increase accountability to communities in Welsh national parks.
	I fully accept the need for nationally appointed members, but many communities are sidelined. Do not forget that parks have planning powers. This means that 20 per cent of planning in Wales is decided by nominees, not by elected people. The Minister, in his response to Amendment No. 307 in Committee stated:
	"The Welsh Assembly Government are preparing to consult on membership arrangements and have expressed the view that they would not want the Bill to pre-empt the decisions that they will take in light of their consultation".—[Official Report, 27/2/06; col. 113.]
	Indeed, direct elections are ruled out in that consultation; only decisions on appointed members will be made. Also, the Welsh Assembly, through secondary legislation, has the power to legislate on membership, but the evidence is that non-elected national park authorities are flawed.
	The wording of this amendment is derived directly from the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, which went through the Scottish Parliament. The Members of the Scottish Parliament have created two national parks: Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and the Cairngorms. The Act contains provisions for direct elections to national parks in Scotland. Indeed, proposed subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause are derived directly from the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Those representatives in the two national parks in Scotland are directly elected, as is proposed for Wales in this amendment. The same structure should find favour in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has secondary legislative powers, but we could push this through in this House, because the Welsh Assembly does not have the primary legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament. If it had those powers it could introduce a provision such as this in Cardiff.
	I hope that the Assembly will take note of what is happening in Scotland and derive benefit from it. I acknowledge what the Minister said in Committee; having read the whole debate and what the Minister said at that time, I suspect that there is little scope for further debate. The Welsh Assembly is consulting on membership, but direct elections are by far the best route. Sadly, they are left out.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth and hope that the Welsh Assembly takes careful note of his wise and informed words on this issue.
	I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 134B, which is consequential—in reverse—on Amendment No. 135 because if the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, tests the opinion of the House on that amendment and the House agrees to it, it will be necessary for Amendment No. 134B to have been agreed. I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, except to agree with him. Until now, the Government's position has been to agree that the 25 per cent is important. Our amendment does not interfere with the increased flexibility—it allows local circumstances to be taken into account—it merely ensures that the safeguard is in the Bill.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 135A and 154A aim to provide that, where a traffic regulation order prohibits the use of motor vehicles on a route over which public motor vehicular rights exist, on revocation of the order, the public motor vehicular rights will be extinguished in cases where the route is no longer suitable for use by such vehicles. Such a provision would serve no practical purpose; if the local authority considers that the route is unsuitable for use by motor vehicles, that local authority has the option of simply not revoking the traffic regulation order.
	Furthermore, traffic regulation orders are primarily formulated for, and for the most part employed on, the ordinary roads network. There is a danger here that amending the legislation relating to traffic regulation orders in order to deal with rights of way issues, could have unforeseen and adverse consequences for the rest of the highways network. For example, the proposed amendment might encourage local authorities to neglect to maintain certain highways, using this provision as a backdoor method of extinguishing rights, rather than going through the proper statutory process for extinguishment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will remember that I put forward those arguments in Committee, but there are some further arguments that I seek to use to persuade him not to press this amendment. I have already explained to the House that the Government have severe reservations about a statutory approach to assessing the suitability of rights of way. A similar approach was taken to the reclassification of roads used as public paths rights in the Countryside Act 1968. Disputes about some of these reclassifications are still going on to this very day. The difficulties would be even greater under these arrangements because we are contemplating statutory extinguishment of rights on the basis of the local authority's assessment of its suitability without any process at all for objection or appeal. Moreover, a TRO only temporarily suspends the public's right to use a highway; it does not extinguish them once and for all as the noble Lord seems to be proposing. Even so, the TRO-making process provides the opportunity for interested parties to object and be heard. This amendment would, we fear, enable once and for all extinguishment on the back of the TRO process, with no further process for those with an interest to have a say. Why create such difficulties when the local authority has the simple option of not revoking an order?
	I understand the expertise that the noble Lord brings to this subject, which is one that I cannot compete with in this House. However, for the reasons I have outlined, we believe that it would be wrong to accept these amendments and I hope that he may withdraw them.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the case that the noble Lord refers to, although quite properly, is a specific case which has little to do with the recreational use of motor vehicles on rights of way, which is what we are concerned with in this part of the Bill—and that would be a matter for the Department for Transport. I shall take away his specific reference.
	I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's question about the cabinet member. I shall write to him with a response.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, these regulations provide for data-matching trials to take place as essential initial work in the development and implementation of the information sharing index, to be established under Section 12 of the Children Act 2004. Section 12 provides that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills may make regulations in relation to the establishment and operation of an index. The Government announced on 8 December of last year, in a written parliamentary Statement, their plans to make an initial set of regulations governing data-matching trials. The regulations before us this evening give effect to that commitment. Later this year, we will consult on and lay before Parliament more substantial draft regulations to govern the operation of the index itself.
	Better information sharing is essential for early and effective intervention to improve the five Every Child Matters outcomes for children: being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution; and achieving economic well-being. The information sharing index is a key element of the Every Child Matters programme to transform children's services. It will support more effective prevention and early intervention to ensure that children get the additional services that they need as early as possible. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of public services for all children, young people and families.
	The index will provide a tool to support better communication among practitioners across education, health, social care and youth offending. It will allow them to contact one another more easily and quickly so that they can share information about children who need services or about whose welfare they are concerned. The index will hold basic identifying information on all children in England. It will also contain the names and contact details of practitioners providing specialist and targeted services to a child. Practitioners will also be able to indicate that they have information to share, have taken action or have completed a common assessment framework.
	It is important that practitioners and the public can be confident in both the accuracy and robustness of the index, when fully developed. A number of concerns have been expressed, not least by your Lordships during the passage of the Children Bill, about accuracy, security and the feasibility of collecting and managing such a large volume of data. That is why we are proceeding by way of trials. The regulations will provide us with the legal basis to undertake key tests in relation to the accuracy and quality of the data that will populate the index. The fact that we are bringing forward these regulations at this time, and in advance of the work to load data onto the index proper, is wholly consistent with our careful step-by step approach towards the whole of the index project. The results of the trials will not only inform the final design of the index but refine the statutory guidance and the full regulations which will support its operation.
	To create a record on the index containing basic information for each child, it will be necessary to draw upon a number of existing sources for the relevant data items. There is no single data source which currently contains them all. To prepare the way for this, we need to examine a sample of records from each of the data sources. This will enable an assessment of how comprehensively each source covers the population of children and which is the most reliable source of accurate and up-to-date information. It will also enable us to assess how disparities in the way in which data sources record each item can most efficiently be overcome, so that data from different sources on the same child can be brought together or matched accordingly.
	The regulations provide a clear legal basis for these tests, and provide for the organisations that hold the data sources to be tested to supply data so the tests can take place. The regulations require local authorities in England to comply with a request from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to supply, from their existing source systems, basic child information. By basic child information, I mean the child's name, address, date of birth, gender, any number used to identify a child's record and the name and contact details of anyone with parental responsibility or who has care of the child, when that information exists. The authorities will also be required to provide the name and contact details of any practitioner providing a specialist or targeted service to the child. We are, however, engaging the participation of only nine local authorities, chosen to represent geographical spread and different size and type of area. I should stress that we have secured the agreement of all nine authorities to take part in the trials, and the Government will meet their reasonable costs. There will be no charge to the council tax payer.
	We will also collect a sample of basic child information from national government data sources under powers provided by Section 12(9) of the Children Act 2004. This permits any of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State to provide information for the index. The Department for Work and Pensions, as data controller for the child benefit records that it holds, will provide basic child information from its child benefit records. This will include the name and address of the child benefit claimant, as proxy for parental details. The Department of Health will provide basic child information and GP practice contact details, and my department will provide basic child information and contact details of any educational establishment the child attends.
	I assure noble Lords that under the terms of Section 12 of the Children Act, no personal or medical records can be included on the index. I also want to make it clear that the draft regulations provide safeguards against the collection and processing of disproportionate amounts of information. We will be taking only a sample of data records. The sample size will be no greater than is sufficient for statistically valid testing of data accuracy. The information will not be used in any operational sense. The output of the trials will be a summary report on the outcome of the tests, and it will not include any personal data that could identify an individual.
	In addition, we will ensure that there will be stringent security measures controlling the physical security of the hardware and systems used to transmit and hold the data for testing. Only a strictly limited number of authorised staff from my department and its contractor will have access to it. The draft regulations provide that the information supplied for these tests will be retained for no more than three years, and we will ensure that it is securely destroyed once our use for it has ended.
	The regulations are a prudent and necessary first step in establishing an accurate and up-to-date information sharing index. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee and 27th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to outline the detail of these regulations. Much of what he has said repeats the announcement by the Secretary of State on 8 December last year and the information provided by the Explanatory Memorandum provided with the regulations.
	We on these Benches believe that the protection of our children, particularly vulnerable children, must be a genuine priority. We fully support the aims behind the Every Child Matters Green Paper and the 10-year strategy on childcare which propose the policy outcome that each child should "stay safe". We concur with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that poor communication between professionals from different agencies was a contributory factor in the death of Victoria Climbié. However, as the NSPCC has highlighted:
	"Costly information systems in themselves will not protect children".
	We have continually expressed serious concerns about the scope of the proposed shared index database, and have highlighted problems that have not been thought through. In drawing these regulations to the attention of the House in its 27th report, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee only emphasises that our concerns have not diminished. Indeed, they have increased, particularly as we envisage potential conflicts and overlaps with current proposed legislation. As my honourable friend, Tim Loughton, said:
	"The government's nanny-state approach will do nothing to safeguard the children most at risk. We should be concentrating on the most vulnerable children who are on child protection registers, in care or in homes with a record of domestic violence . . . We opposed this clause when it was proposed in the Children's Act 2004. It is bureaucratic nonsense and ID cards for children by the back door".
	We are not against the principle of databases; we need them to protect vulnerable children. But they should contain only minimal information and cannot be a substitute for professionals talking to one another.
	In our debates on the Identity Cards Bill, we have looked carefully at what the Home Affairs Committee referred to as the,
	"proliferation of large-scale databases",
	including the potential database we are discussing today. I remind your Lordships of that now well known quote from the Information Commissioner that we are in danger of sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
	There are around 11 million children in Britain today; according to the Government, 3 million to 4 million are vulnerable. We share the concerns of the Information Commissioner that the Government have failed to justify setting up a universal database covering 100 per cent of children, irrespective of whether there are concerns about individual children.
	Along with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we question whether the database complies with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the right to respect for private and family life. We believe that the scope of the index should be limited to vulnerable children only, with clear limits on the use of information that is held, and that a universal database is not a proportionate response to the pressing social need it is trying to address.
	During debates on the Children Bill, my noble friend Lord Howe stated that the index is,
	"a charter for Ministers to devise information-sharing schemes of an unspecified and potentially far-reaching nature, overriding common-law rights of confidentiality, and without necessarily paying heed to the fundamental principles of data protection . . . I have very serious difficulties with this . . . There are numerous practical questions as well which remain unresolved".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1217.]
	I hope that the Minister will today be able to provide better answers to our concerns than the ones that have failed to assure us to date.
	The regulations allow for trials of sharing information to be implemented. What system will these trials use? Are the systems already in place and, if not, what is their estimated cost? Are they the same computers and databases that will be used should this index be rolled out nationally? What assessment have the Government made following concerns expressed by us and the Information Commissioner on the administrative burden of capturing information on all children, and the resources required to follow up concerns? The Government's record with large databases to date has not exactly provided a glowing reference.
	Security and access to information on a local scale, let alone a national one, can have serious consequences should it fall into the wrong hands. I hear what the Minister says about the restricted number of people who will have access to the database, but what training will they have and what checks with the Government insist on? Will the people operating the trials, with access to the shared information, have Criminal Records Bureau checks? Who will decide if these trials, let alone the national project, will comply with the Data Protection Act and ensure that personal data are accurate, relevant, secure, and, as the noble Lord said, not kept longer than necessary? Will children be allowed to access the records held on them in the index under the Data Protection Act?
	The ability to flag up a "cause for concern" can mean different things to different people. Worries have been raised that this subjective view could also lead to a danger that some care professionals may add it as a defensive measure, particularly in today's increasingly litigious society. While one would hope that all care professionals are honourable and careful enough not to do so, what steps will the Government take should this arise? We must avoid a tick-box mentality when dealing with our vulnerable children.
	I am conscious of time; for the reasons I have mentioned, and more, we opposed these measures during the passage of the Children Bill. I hope that the Minister can at least give us assurances that if the proposed pilot schemes do not pass muster, the Government will consider returning to the drawing board rather than pushing on with what we already view as a flawed scheme.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the regulations to us. I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. During the passage of the Children Bill we, too, opposed this clause and argued that it was quite unnecessary to set up so large a database. We also felt that in so far as any database was required, it should be limited to vulnerable children. That said, the Government are determined to attempt to set up this huge database. We should remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris said, that there are 11 million children and we are effectively aiming to gather basic identifying information such as, the Minister told us, the name, address, gender, date of birth and unique identifying number of children. Basic identifying information about the child's parent or carer and contact details for services involved with the child—the school, GP and other services—will be included. There will also be a facility for practitioners to share information with others to flag up areas of concern—there was a lot of discussion during the Children Bill on that.
	Ultimately, the aim is to establish this huge database—an identity card for every child, in effect. However, it is sensible that there should be trials before the Government proceed with this. In that sense, as far as these regulations are concerned, we on these Benches feel that it is sensible to see the trial go forward before we endorse what the Government are doing. We are particularly pleased that the draft regulations that will be issued later in the summer will be issued in the light of at least some of the early developments from the trial and I understand that there will be extensive consultation on these draft regulations because it is vitally important that we have extensive consultation. We are also reassured that this trial database is seen very firmly as a trial and that all the data will be securely destroyed after the trial has been concluded.
	Our concerns when we discussed the Children Bill were about maintaining the accuracy of the information, particularly the difficulty of keeping tabs on a population which moves rapidly around in rented accommodation, as is true of vulnerable children. Keeping up-to-date information on addresses, schools and GPs will not be easy. Undoubtedly, a key feature of the trial will be to see how far the data from different sources can be married up. It is essential that the trial includes a substantial example of this highly mobile population.
	It is particularly unclear, other than through the process of reconciling conflicting information, how far and how it is proposed to test accuracy and reliability. I am also unclear about how far aspects of this database will be available to the general public. I assume that information about the name of the child, its gender, address, GP and school contacts would, through the Data Protection Act, be available for the individual parent or carer—indeed, as the child is older, for the child itself—to see to assess its accuracy. I do not know how far the trial will be using that ultimate test of accuracy to test the quality of the information as it goes along. Will it include an opportunity for individuals concerned to see the data about themselves?
	Equally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned, there was considerable concern about preventing others from obtaining information—I am particularly concerned about vulnerable children or mothers who have been open to abuse and so forth. It is important that the trial tests security systems. The database must be secure and cannot be accessed by non-authorised personnel. I assume that that will also be part of the trial.
	Finally, one comes to the whole question of how much the trial will cost. Estimates given in the Explanatory Memorandum suggest that during the period of setting up the database from 2005-08 there will be a one-off implementation cost of £224 million and that the annual operating costs will subsequently be £41 million. I am very sceptical about those figures. Given the costs of implementing the identity cards database that we have seen—somewhere in the region of 25 per cent of the population will be put on the identity cards database—we ought to be talking in billions rather than millions. However, those are the costs that have been put down. I hope that the trial will provide accurate estimates of the cost of putting such databases together.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rehearsed her party's opposition to these regulations, which I fully understand. However, I think that she would agree, since I always aim to promote the maximum possible area of consensus when I speak to your Lordships, that proceeding by way of trial as we are and as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reiterated, is by far the best way of going about testing a number of the propositions that she laid down and many of the concerns that she raised. Of course, the areas of concern that she raised are legitimate—in many cases, to do with the robustness of a large project of this kind. It is precisely for those reasons, to bottom out a number of the operational, practical and cost issues—including those cost issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, a moment ago—that we are proceeding by way of trial.
	The robustness of the data is important as are issues to do with confidentiality and cost; hence the pilot. We intend to engage in extensive consultation as the pilot proceeds and I give an undertaking today that I will seek to engage both of the Opposition parties in that consultation. Indeed, once we have early results from the trials, I will speak to both noble Baronesses to share more information—on the basis that it is not more widely shared and is destroyed immediately afterwards.
	I will take the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, one by one, but I may need to respond to some of them afterwards in writing. She asked why the index was not limited to vulnerable children but would be extended to all 11 million children. Although I was not party to the previous debate, I understand that this issue has been rehearsed before when the Children Act was undergoing its passage. We believe that it is important and appropriate to cover every child because it is estimated that, at any one time, 3 million to 4 million children and young people need additional targeted and specialist services. It is not possible to predict accurately in advance which children will have such needs or which children will never have them. Any child or young person could require the support of those services at any time in their childhood. Moreover, we believe that all children have the right to the universal services of education and primary health care and the databases will show whether or not they are receiving those services and will then help trigger local action to ensure that they do receive them.
	In our view, a universal index is much less stigmatising and therefore much easier to operate than one that is simply focused on children who are on the at-risk register because no threshold decisions have to be made concerning who should or should not be on the register.
	The noble Baroness asked whether the index complies with the European Convention on Human Rights concerning privacy. Any measure that might constitute interference with ECHR rights to privacy must go no further than is necessary to the pursuit of the legitimate aim. The Government have opinion from Treasury counsel that supports our view that the inclusion of all children on index systems is proportionate and justified and will not interfere with Article 8 of the ECHR. The type and amount of information on the index is stringently restricted with no case information recorded.
	The cost issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and I simply reiterate the figures that she herself gave to the House which we have made publicly available. We will keep a close eye on those costs as we conduct the tests and trials and will be happy to report back to the House further.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and her colleagues have claimed that the information sharing index was a system of ID cards by stealth. The objectives of the index are to support local agencies and their duties to co-operate to promote the well-being of children, to safeguard them and promote their welfare as set down in Sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004, and no more. There is no comparability with the ID card. The purpose of the index is to improve services to children with a strong emphasis on early intervention and prevention where children have additional needs. The data about children to be held is clearly specified and limited. The objectives are quite distinct from those of ID cards, which are in any case for post 16 year-olds.
	How will we be certain that the index will be secure? The index is designed from the bottom up with security in mind. Robust security measures relating to access to, and misuse of, data will be introduced. These issues will be reflected in the regulations, guidance and staff training that will govern the operation of the index. Unauthorised access will be prevented by using a combination of measures. First, strong, two-factor authentication involving the need to possess a physical token and to know a secret password will be used. A good analogy would be chip and PIN, which is used to authorise payments. This will prevent the guessing of passwords and other forms of attack on password access, and will also render a stolen token useless. Secondly, all users will be trained in the importance of security and good security practice. They will be made aware that misuse of the index could result in disciplinary action or a criminal conviction.
	The noble Baroness asked how we would stop unauthorised people gaining access. All users will have their use of the system monitored and there will be an audit trail of their use of the system. All users will have to state a reason for accessing a child's records, and all access to any data will be recorded and reviewed regularly for suspicious patterns of access. Misuse of the system will be detected. Children who have a reason for not being traced—for example, where there is a threat of domestic violence or where the child has a celebrity status—will be able to have their details concealed. No case information will be held on the index.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked who will have access to the index. Practitioner access will be granted according to the role of the practitioner. All practitioners with access will have to have had relevant training and undergone appropriate CRB checks. Based on trailblazer experience, we estimate that between 300,000 and 400,000 users will access the index. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill which is currently before your Lordships provides that the operators or administrators of the index be included in the top category of regulated activity under the Bill's proposed barring scheme. They would not only be subject to mandatory checks, but, if this led to inclusion on the children's barred list, also be barred from employment.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked me whether the index satisfies the requirements of the Data Protection Act. We believe that it does. The full regulations and statutory guidance will clearly set out that all information on the index will be handled in a manner that is consistent with the Data Protection Act, and they will address issues of accuracy, retention, security and confidentiality.
	I was asked who was responsible for the index. Accountability for a child's records will lie with the local authority in whose area the child is ordinarily resident. This includes responsibility for ensuring that the index is operated in line with the regulations and statutory guidance, and that all data are current and up to date.
	I was asked by the noble Baroness about training. I can give a commitment that all users will undergo training before they have access to the index. Included in their training will be training on legal responsibilities. The costs of this training are included in the published costs of £224 million for implementation.
	I was also asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, what systems would be used. Only specialist, closed systems for data analysis will be used. Only analysts will have access. The data will be securely eradicated after analysis.
	I reiterate why these regulations are before us today. They provide for data matching trials as an initial step in establishing the information sharing index. The index is a tool to help support improved communication between practitioners working with children and young people. By knowing who else is involved, practitioners will be better placed to help children, young people and their families get the help they need more quickly.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this order is required to amend Section 33(5) of the Child Support Act 1991. The effect of the amendment is to substitute the reference in Section 33(5) to,
	"the register of judgments held in accordance with Section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984"
	with,
	"the register held in accordance with Section 98 of the Courts Act 2003".
	Much of the recent debate about the future of the Child Support Agency has focused on ensuring that it has adequate powers of enforcement. This order is merely a tidying-up exercise. It will allow the CSA's current powers to continue.
	The amendment is consequential to the commencement of Section 98(1)(c) of the Courts Act 2003, which comes into force on 6 April, when, under the provisions of Section 109(3) and Schedule 10 of the Courts Act 2003, Section 73 of the County Courts Act will be repealed.
	On 6 April, the register of county court judgments will be replaced by the register of judgments, orders and fines. The register will continue to be kept for the department by Registry Trust Ltd, which has satisfactorily maintained the register of county court judgments since 1985 and the register of CSA liability orders since 1991. Registry Trust Ltd is a non-profit-making company limited by guarantee which operates under the terms of a contract with the Lord Chancellor. This agreement is in the process of being revised to ensure adequate provisions are in place to support the new regulations and to protect the taxpayer's interests in relation to the transfer of undertakings to another contractor, if necessary.
	The purpose of Section 33(5) of the Child Support Act 1991 is to allow the Child Support Agency to register any liability orders made for the recovery of arrears of maintenance payments on the register of county court judgments as if they were county court judgments registered under Section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984. The register of county court judgments is a public register that is open to inspection by anyone, and the presence of an unpaid liability in the register may affect the registered debtor's ability to obtain employment, credit or other services.
	The effect of this order will be that the CSA will continue to register its liability orders as it currently does, but they will form part of the register created under Section 98 of the Courts Act 2003; that is, the register of judgments, orders and fines. I commend the draft order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6 February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his great support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for smiling at me across the Chamber and nodding his assent. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it, including Amendments Nos. 140 to 142 and 144.
	I will deal first with Amendment No. 136. As we rehearsed in Committee, the figures for some applications for the rights of way open to vehicles vary according to source, possibly because they cover different aspects of the same problem. GLEAM calculates that by May 2005, some 1,500 applications to change byways into byways open to all traffic had been received by councils in England. The bulk of those were lodged after December 2003.
	I have studied Hansard for 28 February and read the letter from the Minister to my honourable friend Jim Paice. These, together with GLEAM's figures, give me cause for concern that if the system is not put in place quickly, some local authorities will find themselves faced with quantities of applications that will require a great deal of expenditure. I understand that the Minister may have some technical difficulties with substituting the date for Royal Assent, but can he give us some guidance on the likely date of commencement or the factors that will determine it?
	I turn now to the big debate on Amendment No. 140, and apologise to your Lordships that my papers are not quite in the order that they should be. As we said in Committee, across England and Wales local authorities are struggling to produce their rights of way improvement plans. They are dealing mainly with public paths, but access—for those on horseback, cycle, or two or four-wheeled vehicles, and for the disabled—is an important part of the workload. I understand that six to eight authorities have completed their plans, but many others have not even started; when they do they will use outside agencies.
	One factor that contributes to delay is the sheer number of applications that have been received for routes to be designated under the CROW Act. Many of those applications will have been carefully and thoroughly researched; they will have been relatively easy to validate and prepare for inclusion on the definitive map. Others, however, will be the subject of contention and will require many hours of skilled administration work to be completed. Still others will have been lodged on flimsy evidence, but will none the less have to go through the process.
	In Committee, the main discussion was about the rights of way used by mechanically propelled vehicles, and many figures were quoted. According to the Minister on 9 December 2003, the number of claims outstanding for routes to be registered as byways open to all traffic stood at some 992. Again, in Committee I asked the Minister whether they were single or multiple claims; I have still not received an answer and I would be grateful for one tonight. By 19 May 2005, that number was 207. In other words, 785 claims, plus an unknown number that arrived after 9 December, had been processed and either accepted or rejected.
	The Government propose that, in the main, applications received after 9 May 2005 will be null and void. Again, I wish to put on record that I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that there is a problem; the current difference between us is the date on which we wish this to be considered. From that date, their proposal would have left some 207 to be processed. Our amendment would remove that 207 from the arena and would, I hope, allow certain local authorities to use their available labour to deal with the backlog on public paths. Apart from that, it would reduce the number of appeals against the rejection of applications lodged between December 2003 and May 2005. That would save time, resources and money in a situation where many local authorities are financially stretched.
	This reclassification of rights of way is not a brand new concept that this Bill thrusts on the unsuspecting public—far from it. Reclassification has been on the cards since 1968 when the Countryside Act was passed. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 brought in the requirement to reclassify either as bridleway or BOAT. The definition of a RUPP goes back further to 1949, when it was described as,
	"a highway other than a public path, bridleway or footpath used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used".
	RUPPs were never intended for vehicle use. Indeed, in the absence of other evidence since 1981, RUPPs have been considered as bridleways with no vehicle rights at all.
	The CROW Act 2000 introduced the concept of a cut-off date, which would clear up the issue once and for all. This NERC Bill proposes, rightly in our view, to bring that cut-off date forward for applications, not existing rights. I was, therefore, slightly surprised at the Minister's response in Committee to my Amendment No. 318A, now Amendment No. 140. It seemed odd that the context of this debate and the chain of events leading up to it had not led him to use a chance to clear up this issue once and for all. At that stage I was grateful for the support of other noble Lords.
	Our Amendment No. 140 aims to limit the exemption of claims from the extinguishment provisions to strike a fair balance between the change in the law and knowledge of that change. Claims are no more than an attempt to test the procedure. Interception of claims by extinguishing rights at the commencement date, and not before, is not retrospection.
	The basic point is that the more applications to which this law applies, the clearer the state of affairs regarding rights of way will become. The more applications that are left exempt from the extinguishments, the more rights of way will be open to abuse, as their users will know that they are in little or no danger of prosecution. The noble Lord may correct me, but as far as I am aware no prosecution has ever been made under Section 34A of the Crow Act, which amends the Road Traffic Act to clarify use of rights of way. Policing those rights of way is notoriously difficult. We now have the opportunity to draw a clear date, which will send out a message to all of those who use any kind of right of way to be aware of the limits of their legal entitlements.
	In Committee, the Minister also stated that the use of the cut-off date was intended to,
	"act as a deterrent to claims submitted simply to thwart the aims of the legislation".—[Official Report, 28/ 2/06; col. 197.]
	The Minister suggested that it was only when the Bill was published that the aims of legislation were clear. Surely that is na-ve in the face of the facts. I think we should look at the facts. Since consultation first suggested controls of recreation off-road vehicles, many applications for byways have been made in order to avoid the legislation and we have assessed the figures, which jump from 657 pre-9 December to 992 on 17 January, a figure told to me by Jim Knight. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister would update us from 17 January. In Committee, we were left unsure as to the exact number of claims that flooded in after December 2003. We can be sure that there was a flood of applications and that it is no coincidence that they came in after consultation on the Bill. If we are generous, however, and take the Minister's figures for the claims outstanding on 19 May 2005, there will be 207 left to deal with. Our amendment would extinguish those claims and reduce the appeals against the rejection of applications lodged between December 2003 and May 2005. It would, I believe, save precious resources and money from local authorities, to which I shall refer at the end of my contribution.
	I do not think I can paint a chain of events more clearly. But I can turn to new evidence that has come to our attention. The following letter shows what has happened in just one parish. If the December date were adopted, it would solve these problems and about 1,000 similar cases around the country. The Minister will be interested to hear that I received a letter, written on 14 March, from Dr Karen Hinckley from the Ashover Parish Council, up in Derbyshire, not far from where he and I reside. It brings to our attention the problem that we are now debating and states:
	"The motorcyclists have inundated the County Council within the last two years with a huge barrage of applications for Modification Orders to upgrade all bridleways and some footpaths into Byways Open to all Traffic (BOATs). There are twenty such applications in this Parish alone. The applications cover all bridleways, and continuous paths, within the parish; if granted, there would not be one single path that horse-riders or cyclists could use without meeting motorised vehicles. County and Parish Councils are being overwhelmed by the applications which we believe were submitted because of proposed changes in legislation. Apparently, neighbouring Parishes are in a similar situation with a massive increase in applications. Nobody has the money to challenge them legally".
	It goes on to state:
	"Trials bikes damage all types of wildlife and destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. The paths used are totally unsuitable in every way for motorised traffic. Often motorbikes pass pedestrians at great speed, showering them with mud and stones and legitimate users and local residents are frightened by them".
	It is sad to record that,
	"Trials bikers are abusive and threatening towards residents who attempt to stop them. Every weekend trials bikers are reported to the Police who are at a loss as to what to do . . . The trials bikers contribute nothing but their damage is huge—the estimate for surface repair for just one local bridle path is £40,000 and no-one can afford it".
	There are many other examples that I could give. We are very concerned about this issue and I bring it to the attention of the House. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: I shall begin with Amendment No. 136, which is linked with Amendments Nos. 141, 142, 144 and 147, all of which are tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. In seeking to substitute "Royal Assent" for the word "commencement" wherever it occurs in Clause 65, the purpose of these amendments is to remove any flexibility that the Government would otherwise have in commencing this clause. This would have the effect of making it impossible for us to synchronise the commencement of this clause, Clause 65, with implementation of the restricted byway regulations and the associated commencement order for Sections 47 to 51 of the CROW Act.
	On day six in Committee, I attempted to explain to the Committee that before Part 6 of the Bill may be commenced, the restricted byways provisions in Sections 47 to 51 of the CROW Act 2000 will need to be in force. In order for the Bill's rights of way provisions to work properly, regulations making amendments to other legislation are also necessary. The reason for this is that Clause 65 seeks to extinguish vehicular rights of way over restricted byways. Section 47 of CROW effectively reclassifies all RUPPs as restricted byways. If Section 47 of CROW has not been commenced before Clause 65 of this Bill takes effect, RUPPs will not be caught by the extinguishment, and any vehicular rights over them will remain, which I do not think is the intention of the majority of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. This is particularly important in respect of commencement in Wales, where, because of administrative arrangements, it may not be possible to commence the restricted byway provisions quite as soon as in England.
	I am pleased to report that the restricted byways regulations were debated and approved in this House and in the other place last week. Because of the need to co-ordinate the commencement of both sets of legislation, the need to give two weeks' notice of the commencement date in the restricted byway commencement order and the fact that we do not yet know on what the date the Bill will receive Royal Assent, the Government must have precise control over the date of commencement of Part 6. We can do this only by providing for a separate commencement order. When will that date of commencement be? It will be a matter of weeks after Royal Assent, at most. The key issue is the cut-off date, because all claims after that date will be determined under the new legislation.
	Government Amendment No. 173 restores the commencement clause to the way in which it was drafted before Report. As I have tried to explain, this is because we need to have control over the precise date of commencement of the Bill's right of way provisions in order to synchronise this with the commencement of the restricted byways regulations and the commencement order for Sections 47 to 51 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I assure the House that this is a purely technical matter of timetabling rather than any lack of intention on our part to bring these provisions into force at the earliest opportunity.
	The crux of the debate is Amendment No. 140, which seeks to replace the 19 May 2005 cut-off date for processing claims under the terms of the existing legislation with the date of 9 December 2003. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, says. There are great strengths of feeling in the country on both sides of the argument about this, even though the side of the argument that has been advanced in this amendment is the one that has the most support. The 9 December 2003 date is the date on which the Government first published the consultation proposals that eventually gave rise to the rights of way provisions in this Bill. We have established that we could in principle provide for all outstanding BOAT claims to be determined under the terms of the new legislation without that having retrospective effect, but the fact that there is no legal impediment to doing this does not, in our view, relieve us of the obligation to be fair and reasonable. Clearly, there are problems with the use of motor vehicles on rights of way that need to be addressed, and we believe that we are doing that in the Bill, but the House should not forget that government research into the use of motor vehicles on BOATs found that many byways are used by motor vehicles for recreation without any detriment to the character of the way or the enjoyment and safety of other users. Our response should therefore be proportionate, as well as fair and reasonable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about human rights issues—a very correct question, if I may respectfully say so. This is an issue not of human rights, but of possible retrospection. The date of 19 May 2005 is more acceptable than 9 December 2003 because the legislation was actually introduced on 19 May 2005, so there is less of an argument that there may be a legitimate expectation of claims being processed under the existing legislation. I repeat that the Government do not think that this is really a human rights issue; it is certainly not about the rights of one user of a right of way against another. The concern about human rights related to the rights of landowners and access to their property, and we hope that that issue has been dealt with in amendments that have already been made to the Bill. Frankly, it is a matter of fairness—I believe that this House always tries to be fair—to the genuine, good applications made since 2003. We would argue that the bulk of the bad applications came later and are covered by our date—19 May 2005.
	I am asked about figures. Let me do my best. I was asked about outstanding applications for byways open to all traffic, and whether those applications were single or multiple. Figures provided by local authorities for the whole of England tell us that some 497 applications for BOATs that were received before 9 December 2003 are still outstanding. We are still waiting for information from a very small number of authorities.
	The figure for applications for BOATs that are still outstanding and received before 20 January 2005—perhaps a significant date as it is the date on which the consultation ended—is 785. The figure for 19 May 2005 is 992.
	We do not know how many applications for byways open to all traffic have been submitted since 19 May last year. We have not made a tally of those claims because, of course, all claims between May and Royal Assent would be caught by the provision in any case. To carry out another tally would be, we believe—we may be right, we may be wrong—an unnecessary administrative burden on local authorities. As I say, applications submitted since 19 May will, under the transition arrangements set out in government Amendment No. 318 in Committee, be processed under the terms of the new legislation.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 27, line 8, at end insert—
	( ) it is over a way whose main use by the public during the period of 5 years ending with commencement was use for mechanically propelled vehicles,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 138A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, not moved.]

Lord Bach: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 154ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 154, not moved.]
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 154ZB not moved.]
	Clause 69 [Interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 154A not moved.]
	Clause 70 [Traffic regulation on byways etc. in National Parks]:
	[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
	Schedule 7 [Designated bodies]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 159 seeks to add volunteers working under the direction of an officer of a local authority to the categories of person through whom a Part 8 function can be discharged by a local authority. Part 8, Chapter 1 of the Bill, which deals with agreements with and between designated bodies, involves some rather technical areas of the law, including this particular clause. In discussing this part of the Bill in Committee, we mentioned that it may be helpful if we wrote on a number of the points that had arisen. My noble friend Lord Bach's letter of 16 March went into some detail on these points, including the role of volunteers working for local authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, found that letter helpful.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned in Committee the increasing role that voluntary organisations play in supporting local authorities and the wide range of important work that volunteers undertake. I want to stress Defra's commitment to the use of volunteers, which is already well established in the department's activities. I would also like to assure the noble Baroness that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not in any way constrain the use by local authorities of the voluntary and community sector in discharging functions under Part 8 agreements. The amendment is therefore unnecessary as it would not open up any new avenues for using the voluntary sector. There is, however, a risk that the amendment could lead to some confusion in accountability for discharging the function.
	Clause 82, as I said, is a rather complex area of the law and deals with the ways in which local authorities can organise themselves internally in order to discharge their responsibilities under Part 8 agreements. These are the so-called "executive arrangements" and the wording in the Bill reflects similar provisions in the Local Government Act 2000.
	I must stress that it is not the purpose of this clause to deal with relations between local authorities and the outside world. In fact, it would not be appropriate here to deal with arrangements between local authorities and volunteers or voluntary organisations. Volunteers are not part of the executive arrangements within local authorities' boundaries. Part 8 does not need to address the use of volunteers because local authorities have existing powers to engage external organisations across the full range of the public, private and voluntary and community sectors.
	I hope that I have given adequate assurances that local authorities can indeed engage the voluntary and community sector in discharging functions under Part 8 agreements and there is no advantage to the sector in mentioning it in this part of the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Baroness not to press this issue.
	Amendment No. 156 adds to the list of designated bodies at Schedule 7 joint committees of local authorities discharging functions in relation to AONBs. The addition responds to an issue raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She observed that joint committees of local authorities can be a good way of facilitating partnership working. We said that we believed there to be a good case for easing restrictions on delegations to joint committees discharging functions in relation to AONBs, and this amendment is our proposal to achieve that end. AONB joint committees discharge similar functions to conservation boards of AONBs, which are included in the existing list of designated bodies. The addition of such joint committees to the list will thus ensure that they, too, can enter into Part 8 agreements.
	The sole purpose of Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 is improving the clarity of the Bill. The first amendment substitutes a better form of words for Clause 81(1). The second clarifies a reference in Clause 81 to another clause in the Bill. These changes remove the risk of ambiguity and possible doubt in the interpretation of the clause. They do not add to, reduce or change the existing powers in the Bill.
	I hope that the noble Lords will agree that that is sensible for a technical area of the law. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for giving a full explanation of the Government's attitude and their understanding of the way that volunteers will fit into local authority activities and it was useful to hear that on the Floor of the House. The other Government amendments are also welcome. Regarding the realistic point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, about local authorities previously not being included, it is appropriate to see that the Government have included them now. Anything such as Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 that clarify the legislation is useful.

Lord Carter: My Lords. I have tabled this amendment to get assurances from the Government on the way in which they propose to respond to the Radcliffe report on the levy bodies. I have always been a strong believer in the idea of the levy boards. Farming is a business of small businesses and it is important that if there is promotion or research development in any sector, which is beneficial to all the members of the sector, then they should all pay for it by statutory levy, and avoid the problem of freeloaders. If it is left to a voluntary levy, some who benefit will not have paid. The case was put well in the Radcliffe report:
	"On the matter of the statutory levy, I conclude that there continues to be a case in principle, based on the application of the 'fragmentation test' and the 'scale of change test' of market failure, for a statutory levy in each of the product areas to which it currently applies".
	Two of the existing bodies—the Horticultural Development Council and the Milk Development Council—are concerned about proposals in the Radcliffe report. The remaining three—the Meat and Livestock Commission, the British Potato Council and the Home-Grown Cereals Authority—have not briefed, so I presume they are not concerned.
	The great strength of the levy boards is that the levy payers want them. They are subject to quinquennial review and therefore they should stay. It is interesting that the levy collection costs vary considerably. This is relevant in Radcliffe to the proposed changes that could be made in the way in which the levies are collected. Per pound, the British Potato Council collected 6.9p, the Horticultural Development Council collected 1.3p, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority collected 4.0p, the Milk Development Council collected 0.6p and the Meat and Livestock Commission collected 2.0p. The Milk Development Council is extremely sceptical. With their levy collection costs of 0.6p per pound collected, it is hard to see what savings could be made by the proposals in Radcliffe. The fear is that there will be a dilution of the present strong industry-focused approach. A tidy and bureaucratic organisation chart is not necessarily the best way to approach the matter.
	Would the Minister confirm that there will be the widest possible consultation before implementation of any changes? Will any proposed changes be put to the vote of the levy payers? I am sure that my noble friend is aware of the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in their report on the Bill. It said:
	"Unlike with the Industrial Organisation and Development Act (1947), the Minister need not be satisfied before establishing a Board that is wanted by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry concerned".
	This applies, I presume, to new boards, which is not the same as existing boards. It went on:
	"Unlike with the 1947 Act, the membership is not required to be taken from (amongst others) persons representing specified interests who must form a majority";
	"Unlike the 1947 Act, the bill does not describe those who may be made by the order to pay a levy";
	"Unlike orders under the 1947 Act, orders under the bill are expressly enabled to confer powers of entry (Schedule 10, paragraph 2(1)) though the memorandum does not explain why this power is needed".
	I have been extremely brief, but these are very important differences. I look forward to my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I believe that my amendments are Amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168? I certainly do not want to detain the House very long, especially at this hour. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about levy boards and their importance. As my amendments cover the MLC rather a lot, I would like to congratulate the Government on the hard work that Defra did in securing the lifting of the EU beef ban. I know that many of its officials were involved in that over a long period and that a lot of work went into it. My thanks, and those of the farming community, go to the Government, and particularly Defra, for achieving that with their European colleagues. It means a lot to the livestock industry.
	In these three amendments I am attempting to secure the position of the MLC functions in Wales. I know that the Minister replied in detail on this matter in Committee, but I should like clarification on a point that I shall be raising towards the end of my intervention. I know that in some quarters there is dissatisfaction with the conduct of the MLC but, in many others, there is recognition of the good work that it does. As the operator of a weigh crate weighing thousands of cattle a week, I was very relieved to hand the whole thing over to the MLC, which was a new body at the time. We did a lot of very useful work, the MLC carried out further development and much useful information came out.
	The Radcliffe report recognises the good work that the MLC has done. It stresses that in the meat sector there will be a place for it in the proposed NewCo, which combines the five levy bodies, including the MLC, recommended by Rosemary Radcliffe. However, I stress to the Minister that in Wales there is particular concern that the funding streams derived from the current structure of the MLC enable an independent body—for example, Meat Promotion Wales—to operate, especially in the function of meat marketing, and that enables the Welsh Assembly Government to provide additional support for the marketing of meat. I should like to know whether the new body will be able to support that kind of operation in Wales in the future.
	I also request assurances from the Minister that the MLC functions will not be swallowed up into a UK NewCo, which would shut off innovative production and marketing of meat from Wales. I know that the Minister addressed that in Committee, and I shall refer to it in a moment. There is particular concern about money and the continued viability of the operation on a Welsh basis.
	Amendment No. 166 is the nuclear option. It would remove the dissolution of the MLC from the Bill altogether to preserve its current structure, thereby protecting the Welsh interest as well as that of excellent bodies such as EBLEX—English Beef and Lamb Executive—which has a very good record in assisting English livestock producers. The Minister needs to convince me that NewCo's structure will not stifle such assets.
	Amendment No. 167 is a cross-reference to Amendment No. 168, which would insert a new subsection (3A). That subsection states:
	"If an order is made providing for the dissolution of the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Assembly for Wales may provide for some or all of its existing functions to continue in Wales".
	There is great concern because we do not produce a great variety of agricultural products in Wales. We produce mainly meat and milk and just a few cereals. They are very important to us because they are pivotal to the economic welfare of farming in Wales. The implication is that, if the MLC is dissolved, its functions can still be carried out in Wales to enable the present advantages to continue.
	I note that on the sixth day of our Committee stage deliberations on the Bill, the Minister said that there would be a single NDPB to act as a holding company, or NewCo, to replace the current five NDPBs. He mentioned, in particular,
	"the possibility that separate boards might be required for certain levy activities in the devolved regions".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 226.]
	That statement is perhaps a little vague for me. If he had stated that separate boards "will" be required for levy activities in the devolved regions or nations, I should be a lot happier. That would secure a more adequate structure and a financial basis for an equitable solution.
	At col. 229 of the Official Report for 28 February, the Minister refers to Clause 80. Is Clause 80 now Clause 78? I suspect that it is. We were looking at a slightly different Bill on 28 February. Clause 78 in the current edition of the Bill is headed, "Designated bodies". I suspect that it is the same clause that was referred to in Committee. If so, what the Minister said on 28 February intrigues me. He said:
	"The Bill already provides the scope for ensuring that an order can establish an NDPB levy board in Scotland or Wales under Clause 80".
	I assume that that is now Clause 78. On the other hand, he also says:
	"I am advised that there is no way in which another body can seek to rely on the powers contained in the Agriculture Act 1967. Therefore I am afraid that we cannot find favour with either of the approaches mentioned to find a way of setting up a separate levy board to cover Wales".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 229.]
	That does not quite clarify the situation. I am hoping that the Minister can satisfy me by confirming that first quotation and saying whether the funding stream will enable a body such as Meat Promotion Wales to continue, with farmers paying the levy and the Assembly assisting it with its functions. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, as this is Report, I take this opportunity to record our thanks for the way in which the Government have looked at the amendments that we tabled in the Committee. They have been very helpful.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In the case of the Horticultural Development Council and the Milk Development Council, I am tempted to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" because they seem to be working extremely well in the present situation.
	A brief word about biofuels—I do not want to detain the House. There is a levy on oilseeds, which is collected by the HGCA. I have a little story about this, which will take only a minute. I was active in the promotion of an oilseed development council in the late 1970s. We had the agreement of the industry and were all ready to go, but there was a change of government in 1979 and the then Prime Minister said that there would be no more quangos. This was not a quango, but never mind. We got around that because we persuaded the old MAFF that oilseeds should be cereals for the purpose of the levy. There was an order to that effect in this House, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the then Minister, and which I dealt with from the Opposition Front Bench. I am told that Ministers had to draw lots to inform the Prime Minister that there would be a levy body after all.
	I am extremely grateful for the Minister's reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.